Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-10-28
THE WRIT OF ERROR.
Hearing of Evidence in the
Anarchists Appeal.
FUCKERS VIGOROUS CLAIM.
"a Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Con-
stitutiOn."
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD. !

Associated Press Dispatches TO the HsRALD. !
WAsHINGToN, October 27.-Antici-
patton of the argument before the
United States Supreme Court to-day
upon portion OF the writ of error in
the Chicago anarchists case attracted
q crowd of eager people, who seemed
as anxious to gain admission TO the
courtrooms as if the Anarchists them
selves were to be present in chains
and to argue their own case in person.
More than an hour before the court
assembled the room was densely
packed with people. Even out in the
corridor there was a crowd endeavor-
ing at least to get glimpse Of the in
terror of the courtroom. The audi
ence was destined, however, to be, at
least for time, disappointed. When
the court was called to order at noon
and candidates for admission to the
bar had been sworn, the Chief-Justice
announced that the court would pro-
ceed with the unfinished business of
yesterday.
THE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCE. .
About one o'clock Tucker opened
the argument in the support of the Pc
titon for writ of error in the case of
the Chicago Anarchists. He said that it
was not necessary for him to show, as
conditions precedent to granting the
writ, that the action complained of in
the court below, was actually repug-
nant to or in violation of the constitu-
ton. 1t was only necessary to show
that conflict had arisen that there
was question whether the action
complained Of was or,was not repug-
nant to the constitution. That
was enough to give this
court jurisdiction. 1t was
not necessary to show repugnancy,
but only conflict. If there is conflict
then this court has jurisdiction, and if
it has jurisdiction, then petitioners
are entitled to writ as right policy.
This court, he said, had been known
to deal literally with petitions for
writs of error in civil cases. How
much more should it deal literally
with petition for a writ of error in a
criminal case involving issues of life
and death, in case where life was
about to be taken away in violation of
the constitution.
THE LAW DEFINED.
In his argument Tucker quoted the
uonavx1 nlnt,Ga nfs fhn Eonr4nnnf1
amendment to the Constitution to the
effect that no State shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities OF citizens of
the United States. Among the privi-
leges and immunities thus granted the
Fourtee nth Amendment were, he con-
tended, those set forth in the first ten
amendments to the Constitution. 1t
has been maintained, he said that the
first ten amendments to the Constitu-
tion were limitations OF federal power
only, but it was his belief that
unless the privileges and immuni-
ties were specially said to be merely
limitations of federal power, they were
privileges and inmunities which came
in purview of the Fourteenth Amend
ment and were guaranteed by it.
Chief Justice Waite: "Then you
would bring all questions to this
court. L cannot conceive OF any
question which cannot be brought
here, if the Fourteenth Amendment
makes the privileges and immunities to
which it refers. include all those OF the
first ten amendments.
AN UNSETTLED POINT.
Tucker said that he would admit
that iJ was a new question, but he
would make the assertion "That the
right to be exempt from unreasonable
searches and seizures, right of freedom
of speech, the right of a citizen against
self-accusation, and the right of Il citi-
zen not to be twice tried by jury
are secured to him by virtue of the
constitution of the United States. Be-
ing so, the Fourteenth Amendment
comes in and says: mo State shall
make or enforce any law which
abridges the rights or privileges of
citizens.
VIOLATION OF PRIVILEGES.
Tucker then referred to the limita-
ton of right, to the peremptory chal-
lenge to which they had been driven,
the seizure of letters. private papers,
etc., and their use as evidence, and
said that this was violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
HIS LAST BLOW.
In conclusion he said: "We have
a right in any judgment to be heard
on the question whether the constitu-
ton has been violated in order to
compass the conviction of these men,"
OPPOSITION ADDRESS.
Attorney General Hunt then adj
dressed the Court in behalf of the
State, and in opposition to the motion
for a writ of error. ''To warrant the
issuance OF the writ, it must appear"
he said, "from the record, first that
there is a Federal question involved
and that such question was raised
and decided in the State Court" The
Attorney General said that so far as
the petitioners rely upon anything
contained in the first ten amend
ments, they can have no standing
in this court. The Fourteenth amend
ment is equally foreign to any right,
privilege or immunity here claimed
by petitioners. The record will show
that the complaint is not that the
State enforced the law which deprives
petitioners of any OF the privileges or
immunities guaranteed by that sec
ton, but that they are deprived OF
rights by the erroneous construction
OF the law placed upon it by the trial
Of the court of the State. As to the
alleged unreasonable search and seiz-
ure Mr.. Hunt said that he would like
to know how much of criminals in
strument of crime could be legally
taken from him. He knew OF no
process by which it could be done if
they were his own. The question for
the Court, however, was not how was
IL